Friday, February 16, 2007

Orthomom Gets Sued

I received the following by e-mail, I do not see it online, nor does it come up on any internet searches. However, I assume it actually appeared in the newspaper in question. Here goes:

FLOGGED ON BLOG, SHE'S SEEKING ID

A LAWRENCE school board member fed up with anonymous kvetching about her on a blog is going to court to stop it from calling her a bigot and an anti-Semite.

Pamela Greenbaum, who serves on the Nassau town's board of education, filed papers against Google over nasty comments posted about her on the Orthomom blog.

In the papers filed Tuesday in Manhattan Supreme Court, Greenbaum said she was "horrified" to discover that she had been labeled a bigot on the Google-owned blog after voting against using public funds for what she called "private school interests."

"I was even more horrified when I discovered the blog reported over 300,000 visitors," Greenbaum said in court papers.

Greenbaum alleges that Orthomom - which focuses on issues of interest to Long Island's Orthodox Jewish communities - slandered her by calling her ugly and an anti-Semite.

Greenbaum, who is Jewish but not Orthodox, seeks to unmask the blogger known only as Orthomom.

"Every day that the defamatory material remains on the Internet for all to see, I continue to be harmed as more such material is posted,"she said in court papers.

A few points:

Pamela Greenbaum is simply not telling the truth here. I never said any such thing about her. She says that I "slandered her by calling her a bigot and an anti-semite". Lie. She might be referring to something that a commenter on my site said. She should say so.

Pamela Greenbaum also says she that she "continue[s] to be harmed" "every day that the defamatory material remains on the internet for all to see". Hm. if that were really true, do you think that perhaps Mrs. Greenbaum would have contacted me to ask me to remove the comments that bothered her so much? I have been asked in the past to remove comments and I have always done so when warranted. I have no idea which the comments in question are - my blog has gotten many thousands of comments on this matter, and Pamela Greenbaum hasn't ever contacted me. Which, of course, leads me to believe this is more about "unmasking" me than about her hurt feelings. I mean, come on. Does anyone on her legal advisory board even follow the relevant law to this frivolous lawsuit?

Well, I will say this: Good luck. I have it on expert legal opinion that this case is a joke.

Update: Krum links with a great post that points out that aside from the fact that the statements were made by commenters and not by me, calling someone "bigoted" is not, by legal definition, defamatory.

I wonder who the attorney Greenbaum used was. I don't think she would use her own money for such a frivolous lawsuit, so I presume that she used a PTA parent or someone else sympathetic to her cause. A real lawyer would have laughed her out o the office.

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of American media law, it's clear even to me that the case is a joke. As a member of the school board, she's a limited public figure, and therefore the rules re: libel and slander are much harder to apply to her. If in the context of discussing a school issue someone accuses her of being biased (ie against Jews, or anti-Semitic), then even if this were in a printed paper, the onus would be on HER to prove not only that this is not true, but also that the paper had been negligent or malicious. She'd be crazy to try to pursue this any further in court.

Assuming this is true, the issue is not whether the plaintiff will win the defamation case, but whether she will win the right to unmask the anonymous defendent known as Orthomom. One would think the latter goal is easier to achieve then than the former, and one would assume that this would represent just as big a loss to o-mom; esp. given the local community's already existing "affection" for her.

there si no grounds to unmask om over this. not to mention that google is notoriously prtective of their customers. there is no way google will give up om's information because a commneter called her a bigot. its laughable really.

What Anon10:15 said. Google is so incredibly protective for obvious reasons - any giving up on privacy would open them up to countless lawsuits, not to mention cost them a nice chunk of their business.

I just wanted to add one more thing ... Mrs. Greenbaum: you should know (and yes, I'm sure you are reading this) if you attempt to pursue this and get nasty with the fair OrthoMom - the Jewish Blogosphere will unite in a way you have never seen Jews unite and instead of having to deal with one blogger you will have to deal with 50 very large bloggers.

Why don't you just take her comments and criticisms into consideration - or not. If you'd like better, then just ignore her, but making a big stink out of it only publicizes her comments to thousands and thousands of MORE people who wouldn't have read them if not for your getting all uppity about it.

I've been sued for this type of thing too. Contact the eff (Electronic Frontier Foundataion) for free legal help. They love this stuff. JWB used them, turned around a filed a SLAP suit against his plaintif and won. Good luck

In all fairness, I find many comments on this website to be anti-semetic. Unfortunately blaming Orthomom is not the answer. I have read some of the most hateful things that in my wildest dreams I never thought a jew could say about a jew. Pamela Greenbaum has been a constant scapegoat on this website. Being that she is the only mother on this board, and somone who truly knows what kids really need, I find it ironic that the women of this community ALL this community turn against her. Ugly, not very nice and or mature, why didn't write a complaint about Mr. Foreman, who snickered and rolled his eyes, when a High School student stood up at a board meeting and complained. The issue not important, agree or not agreed, not important, this is one of our finest children early acceptance to college, attends board meetings to be aware, and you snicker roll your eyes? What are we teaching are children? Every board member, sat and listened empathetically, so let us pick on the board member who knows the most about children. We have gotten so far away from what this board is supposed to do. Educate the children of this community. Enough. Leave Pam Greenbaum alone,

From a legal perspective, I will simply concur with the other comments and note that you don't seem to have much to worry about (let us not even get into the point that truth is an absolute defense, because that wouldn't be nice). Relatedly, I have always maintained that the battles in SD 15 (and 14) are economic, not sectarian or religious. I think this Times article back me up: Scottsdale Journal A School District With Low Taxes and No Schools at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/us/16scottsdale.html?ex=1329282000&en=0d764ce8d52599d4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, or has someone figured out how to blame the Orthodox for this too?

the thing that I find both amusing and a little scary is that she's acting exactly like a young melodramatic teenage girl over this. Instead of confronting anyone about this she goes around the back and sues google in hopes of getting google to boot you off it something.

It's really sad when a public figure has to resort to something like this.

Does Ms. Greenbaum think the community should trust her to fairly decide school board issues and help manage a multi-million dollar budget when she displays such poor judgment in filing a suit like this?

Interesting, the constitutional ammendment quoted by the "Public School" population to deny the Private School stutents whatever they possibly can, is the same one that gives Google and orthomom and all of us the freedom to blog about it. FREE SPEECH ROCKS.

As a side matter, could Google reveal OM's identity if they wanted to? Did she have to provide personal information to register with blogspot? Does Google even know who she is?

Google requires a valid email address to start a blog. That's about it. They may have access to your IP address, which *could* be correlated with a particular person, but it's not in their interest to reveal either of these, since, you know, their whole business model is based people trusting them with such information.

The case Pamela Greenbaum v. Google, Inc. has the index number 102063/2007. The Plaintiff’s law firm is, Feder & Rodney, Esq. If anyone is really interested in the case, you can get a copy of the pleadings at the court at 60 Centre Street.

Interestingly, it does not appear that Orthomom was named as a “Jane Doe” defendant. Thus, the post’s title “Orthomom Gets Sued” is technically inaccurate.

Its worth noting that Plaintiff is not filing a lawsuit against Google seeking damages from Google. Under “relief sought,” the state’s website indicates that they filed a Motion for “Discovery Before Act.Commenced.” All they are doing is asking the court to subpoena Google’s records to determine who the blogger is. (It’s not clear that Google has any idea.) I hope they lose, but there have been cases were courts have granted similar such motions. The Motion is currently scheduled for February 22, 2007 before Judge Marcy S. Friedman. It will probably be adjourned.

what possible legal grounds does PG have for asking for orthomom's identity when what she objects to is a COMMENTER'S post? This makes no sense. I hope the court will throw this out as simply a malicious suit seeking to silence orthomom. Especially when there are other methods that any "reasonable person" would have pursued before filing a suit.

We told you it was coming. Get your head out of the sand and take it seriously. The media vehicle over which defamation is published is a valid defendant in such a lawsuit. During discovery, orthomom will be required to disclose the identities of the bloggers who actually committed the defamation. The days when these sites can bu used to harm the reputations of people your subscribers disagree with, are coming to an end. Your so called legal experts will be eating crow, (assuming it has the Vaad certification) are coming to an end.

a) you should try to locate that specific comment.b) already some three years ago this happened to someonehttp://www.gavinsblog.com/2004/03/17/my-blog-has-been-threatened-with-legal-action-by-author-john-gray/c) and for what it's worth, here's a guide http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-overview.phpd) but i'm sure you already have spoke to half a dozen lawyer in schule this morning - oops, no, that can't be. You're anonymous or maybe Greenbaum is tracking all lawyers in the Five Towns?

Hey legaleagle, you're not so good at parsing texts, so I'll help you out.

1) it is not defamation to call someone a bigot, nor is it so to call someone ugly. If a commenter had said that she lines her pocktes with district funds, THAT would be in the realm of actionable statements. short of that, there's no real case here.

2) the people who comment here are not exclusively bloggers - in fact they are probably mostly anonymous (like yourself). To call them so as you do reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of this media modality - a lack that will translate into a quick legal defeat for Greenbaum.

3)ever try tracking down an IP from an anonymous comment made a year ago? Good luck.

4) OM has done nothing (once again, if you didnt learn to read well because your school district failed you from an educational standpoint, OM did not make these comments - anonymous commenters did so with neither her assent or disapproval) apart from politely exposing the hypocrisy and absurdity extant at the heart of the position held by greenbaum and supporters. If you question her right to do this, or her right to do so anonymously, you clearly missed the day they taught con law at law school. Further, you seem to want a society where the only views held are the ones that concur with your own. Sounds pretty fascist. And pretty frightening.

Let's call this lawsuit what it is: an attempt to squelch free speech and open dialogue by a bitter woman who can't stand being in the public eye in a negative sense. It is aimed purely at exposing OM's identity, which is an action that is purely vindictive. Pam, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the political kitchen. We wont be sad to see you go - I'm pretty sure your spot can be filled by people who actually give a damn about the education of all their district's kids as opposed to just the teacher's union. I think it would be best filled by an official who doesnt make decisions based on his or her own threatened sense of religious equinamity.

I just wanted to add one more thing ... Mrs. Greenbaum: you should know (and yes, I'm sure you are reading this) if you attempt to pursue this and get nasty with the fair OrthoMom - the Jewish Blogosphere will unite in a way you have never seen Jews unite and instead of having to deal with one blogger you will have to deal with 50 very large bloggers.

I see a different angle to this. Forget the lawsuit. She wants publicity for what is going on in the school board. Even when a vote goes for the public school needs (updating the phone systems,rightly so in this case) The school board still gets slammed. Go figure.

Actually, I think what's going on here is that bloggers are going after an individual who's attempting to limit another blogger's rights. This isnt about orthodox versus secular (although critics of orthomom and anon 8:43 want to make it so.) For example, I'm no longer orthodox. I just dont want anyone telling a blogger what she can or cannot say.

What I think is really going on here is chillul constitution, and it aint coming from OM's supporters.

"Actually, I think what's going on here is that bloggers are going after an individual who's attempting to limit another blogger's rights. This isnt about orthodox versus secular"

PG is secular. OM and the gang are orthodox. The "issue" might not be a secular/ortho issue but that does not avoid the sickening reality that orthobloggers are "going after" someone who is not religious.I dont care if the issue is baseball, it is still NOT a Kiddush HashemChilul Constitution,Bloggers Rights what ever you want to call it , it is still NOT a Kiddush Hashem. The lawsuit may be frivilous. The point is not. A Jewish person , according to the Torah , should not be involved in defaming a person directly( which OM did not) or indirectly (which OM did by not pulling those comments) I trust the legal system to take care of up holding the Constition.The constition doesn't need a bunch of Orthobloggers to defend it.

Blogging is sometimes called new media,I wonder is Orthomom's desire to protect her posters and say what she believes protected by the First Amendment under the Freedom of the Press? What is the functional difference between Orthomom's writings and her posters' than an OpEd writer for the NY Times and his sources? I also find it hypocritical that Ms. Greenbaum was vehemently against people having to sign in at Board of Ed meetings (even after some Board members received death threats) but now all of a sudden wants to expose any blogger who disagreed with her. This seems to me that is a self-serving partisan agenda.

I would like to know if Pam Greenbaum,a publically elected official, is paying for her lawyer. Is the District paying for it? Is it a gift from a taxpayer or the LTA? Even if the lawyer is donating his time, his time is worth something and as an elected official is she allowed to accept gifts?

'the constitutional ammendment quoted by the "Public School" population to deny the Private School stutents whatever they possibly can'

Actually the problem in giving aid to religious schools is in the New York State Constitution, not the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The courts have held contrary to the intent of the original writers of the First Amendment that it does not bar government funding of religious institutions.

'A Jewish person , according to the Torah , should not be involved in defaming a person directly( which OM did not) or indirectly (which OM did by not pulling those comments) '

Calling someone an anti-semite is defamatory. If the right to free speech was without limitations, our legal system would not permit defamation lawsuits. All of you tzadikim who profess to be true believers in Judaism are nothing but hypocrites, and you can discuss this matter in shul with your legal experts all Shabbos long, but the day of reckoning is coming.

Calling someone an anti-semite is defamatory. If the right to free speech was without limitations, our legal system would not permit defamation lawsuits.

Actually, read Krum's post. Calling someone "racist", "antisemitic", or "bigoted" is not considered defamatory. Especially of a public figure. Especially by an anonymous commenter, where it is clear that the statement is far from a credible statement of fact.

Where does it said in the Torah that it id permissible to facilitate a blog that creates animosity through defamation >Public fiquire .. is only relevent to U.S. law. I'm saying is this act of blogging and allowing for posting really "Muter" according to Judaism?

"Where does it said in the Torah that it id permissible to facilitate a blog that creates animosity through defamation >Public fiquire .. is only relevent to U.S. law. I'm saying is this act of blogging and allowing for posting really "Muter" according to Judaism?"On an issue like this one. I think yes. There is no inyan of loshon hora if it is covered in the papers.

LEGALEAGLE: Your name belies your ignorance. As posted before, for a public figure, the threshold is extremely high - you have to prove actual malice, which is an extremely tough standard. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Also, you have to prove injury and that the defendant or should have known the communication was false. Good luck on that.

Anon 9:24, you make a number of extremely questionable statements. I'll parse as many of them as I can bear to.

1) "PG is secular. OM and the gang are orthodox. The "issue" might not be a secular/ortho issue but that does not avoid the sickening reality that orthobloggers are "going after" someone who is not religious.I dont care if the issue is baseball, it is still NOT a Kiddush Hashem"

As far as I can tell, PG is the one who started "going after" people with a lawsuit that amounts to nothing more than a "you hurt my feelings" argument. That said, I think YOU miss the point when you ignore the constitutional issue present here. The overwhelmingly orthodox support for OM stems from the fact that her subject matter and readership happens to be orthodox. If they were attacking PG en masse for her school board position (and most of the bloggers rallying to OM's defense here were not even aware of the issue of the 5 towns board until friday when this story broke) you could make the argument that this was an orthodox lynch mob. However, that is not the case here. What you have instead is a non-blogger (PG) treading on the collective rights of bloggers everywhere, and a response by the blogging public - who in this case coincidentally happen to be orthodox - attacking such unconstitutional and orwellian behavior. If OM goes to the EFF (known champions of online free speech) or the ACLU and they defend her cause (which they would), are these ALSO orthodox institutions attacking a secular cause? I think not.

2) "Chilul Constitution,Bloggers Rights what ever you want to call it , it is still NOT a Kiddush Hashem."

Last I checked, the kiruv/no chillul hashem clauses you blithely throw about do not prohibit you from defending yourself. Unless you beleive that OM should throw down her arms, accept all of PG's terms and cease and desist all criticism in the vain hope of possibly making PG orthodox (for that matter, why should we care whether or not she's orthodox - I dont care how she spends her shabbat or accepts services paid for by her tax dollars, as long as she doesnt tread on my right to spend mine or recieve my fair share equally. To insist on HER being orthodox - which is the defiinition of kiruv - implies that you feel like there's something wrong with the way she currently lives her life. Which I certainly dont, but you imply you do. Perhaps YOU'RE the religious colonialist here?), OM and all the other bloggers here who are threatened by PG's unjustified suit are perfectly entitled to defend their position. Orthodox does not equal pushover, nor should it.

3) "I trust the legal system to take care of up holding the Constition.The constition doesn't need a bunch of Orthobloggers to defend it. "

Well, in that case, I'll call the ACLU right away and tell them that all their work is unneccesary. After all, the constitution is certainly rich enough (it WAS written by a bunch of old white landed dead guys, right?) to pay for its own legal fees. Actually, the point here is that without motivated interest groups standing up for their rights, there would be no constitutional protection. Ultimately, PG's foolish because she has taken the side of an issue where as the besieged secular power she previously had the widespread support of the general public and now, because she's opposing basic legal and constitutional rights of expression, she's become the enemy of ultra liberal (and secular) organizations like the EFF and the ACLU. And if she wants to sue me for saying so, be my guest.

This lawsuit certainly seems frivilous, but I find this amusing. God has such a great sense of humor. OM deserves some "petch" for her lack of Kavod Hatorah. Maybe hashem just wants to make her life a little difficult.

Sounds like the message she is sending is "publish that I am a bigot or anti-semite and you've gone too far." Mrs. Greenbaum is routinely maligned on this blog for her school board votes, and has done nothing about it. It is for a court to decide whether publishing that she is an anti-semitic bigot is libel within the legal defitintion of that term, if she decides to file a libel lawsuit (which, of course, she hasn't). Meanwhile, I think her message is not unreaonable and has been sent even though some here choose not to receive it.